4 Stars

Required for my class, which I actually appreciated since this was extremely illuminating, and added greatly to my perspective of the world.

This book outlines various global relations as “projects,” from the development project following the colonial project, to the globalization project somewhat concurrent with a (hopeful) sustainability project. It offers so much deeply valuable information and insights about the world order and all that has entailed. A truly radicalizing text, which I wouldn’t recommend to anyone who wants to believe in American or European altruism or anyone who wants to believe in the all-mighty power of the free market, because this book will singlehandedly shatter those illusions. It’s deeply depressing to confront the reality which is that capitalism and neoliberalism were designed to benefit the ultra rich and the ultra rich alone. And so many efforts which have been framed as benevolent are actually upholding institutional structures of inequality and exploitation. All that we have for hope is ourselves, the power of the people in mobilizing for our collective continuance.

I do so wish I could make my American compatriots read this to wake them up from their American exceptionalism and blind faith in neoclassical economics and wholesale disregard for the majority world.

Super enlightening read, however dense. Still, I did find this book largely readable, perhaps because I found it to be well-organized for the most part. At the same time, there was such an abundance of information within these pages that my head is still swimming with all its contents, and I feel I would need a good reread to truly absorb it all.

2.75 Stars

I read this for a class, and let me tell you, it was a chore.

The writing was so disorganized, a splattering of loosely connected thoughts and examples that go in circles. Maybe it would have read as more coherent if I had any kind of background in globalization or culture or anthropology or history. Alas, I do not.

I felt especially lost since Pieterse would often supply a number of examples without ever explaining or contextualizing them. I was always taught AEC—Assertion, Evidence, Commentary. Make a claim, provide evidence, and explain how the evidence connects to prove your point. Pieterse often fails to explain his examples. Rather, he just leaves them hanging there and moves on. I couldn’t really gain anything from the examples as such. Granted, I have the internet at my disposal, and I very well could go do my own research, but isn’t that his job? Furthermore, I was to read this book in 2 weeks for my class, so I really couldn’t go digging into every random mention of some faraway group or event or place. Sorry I’m UNWORLDLY! (I really am sorry, actually)

Another writing quirk of Pieterse’s was the unpredictable direction of his arguments. He’ll introduce a mode of thought, give credence to it, then tell you why it’s actually wrong or Eurocentric or shallow or what have you, only to then tell you the counterpoint is also unfounded or flat or whatever. It felt like being led through a maze, and just when you think you’ve reached the end, you’re led down yet another turn. As a result, it’s difficult at times to get the point.

I was also dreadfully bored reading this and wishing it would be over soon. I genuinely had to count down the pages (a tenuous task on an ebook with changing page numbers). Though I did not enjoy this book, I admit I am probably just too dumb for it. Too terribly dumb and unfamiliar with the world.

Pieterse did make a lot of great arguments, so far as I could tell. I previously had a very Eurocentric view on globalization as being synonymous with Westernization or Americanization. I lamented the McDonaldization or Disneyification of the world. But the deeper, more historically accurate view of globalization is that it has existed all along, and we are only now (post-ICT explosion) experiencing accelerated globalization, which is multidirectional and generative rather than blended in a melting pot. Hybridity offers a lens of viewing the ways cultures merge and make anew, also giving space for the hybrid, the in-between, the borderlands.

Still, a lot of this text went over my head. One thing I did get was that the predominant direction of globalization has shifted, starting from the East with the Silk Road, then from the West in the 19th and 20th centuries, and now back from the East, best exemplified by the rise of China while America has been rapidly declining as a result of neoliberal plutocracy and nationalism which has bred anti-globalization. I agree with all of this, but I can’t even say that with full conviction because how can I fully agree with something I don’t fully understand?

Overall, super dense and disjointed read that promises a lot of valuable knowledge that is locked behind a thorough education of worldly affairs. It felt like trying to read the scraps of text around a paywall.

3.5 Stars

This was assigned for a class, and I’m glad it was. It complemented my learning nicely :) I would recommend this to anyone interested in sustainability, with just a few caveats.

Probably the largest is that this is written from the narrow perspective of Eurocentrism. Genuinely, Caradonna had so little to say about the world outside of the U.S. and Europe, besides some (in my opinion) distasteful and reductive opinions on the Global South, which he refers to several times as “developing,” seeming to believe that these countries are behind and need to catch up in terms of development, negating the legacy of colonialism and the impact of neoliberalism on underdeveloping the majority world. It wasn’t terrible or anything in that respect, and it’s not as though it’s a crime to have a narrow focus for research, but I felt Caradonna’s themes could have been strengthened by a more global perspective at times. And even being so focused on America, Caradonna barely talks about America’s Indigenous peoples, from which the sustainability movement could learn greatly.

Though limited in perspective, this book still made for a pleasantly succinct and thorough review of the history and current state of the modern sustainability movement. I really enjoyed how he reveals the Industrial Revolution as the origin of our discontents. I’d argue colonialism is the closer origin, but I still thought it was valuable the way Caradonna rewrites the narrative of economic growth. Truly, if I could assign this book to every tech bro and frat boy plaguing American economics, I would in a heartbeat. Fuck neoclassical economics!!! Look where it has gotten us! For the love of god when will we achieve class consciousness so we can finally overthrow our plutocratic evil ass sociopolitical system? Why are we all miserable to the benefit of the 1%? What do they care about us!!! I digress.

Though Caradonna provides a great discussion on the idiocy of neoclassical economics, he is still a proponent of capitalism. He takes issue with unlimited growth, but he does not view unlimited growth as inherent to capitalism. He believes capitalism can be capped in a sense, that it can reach a steady state as Herman Daly posits (or as Adam Smith earlier envisioned as a stationary state). I would certainly take this over the current neoclassical model, but on a deeper level I am someone who believes capitalism and sustainability are antithetical. We can workshop it all we want, the very fundament of capitalism is directionally at odds with that of sustainability.

Alas, I feel I must abandon my scruples since I doubt we are anywhere close to the point of dismantling capitalism (our people are too apathetic and too distracted and too uneducated and too divided and too hopeless, need I go on?), so maybe a less repulsive version of capitalism would be tolerable in the meantime. I’m skeptical, but at least a regulated, degrowth capitalism would be better than what we have now, and easier for most people to get on board with.

Another disagreement of mine lies in Caradonna’s discussion on the inclusion of poor communities in sustainability, not because I disagree with this sentiment, but because it presupposes that the mainstream, upper-middle-class version of sustainability (organic food, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc.) is the only one. Although poor communities may not be able to afford eco-fashion or whatever, does not mean they are unsustainable. Instead, poor communities are likely to thrift or pass down clothes, which is in fact much more sustainable than buying new. They are also more likely to use public transit, more likely to make use of what they already have rather than buy new, more likely to work the land in such a way that they intuitively understand the significance of ecological flourishing (e.g. climate change directly impacts harvest), more likely to appreciate the gravity of climate change as they are the most vulnerable, more likely to participate in an informal economy which undermines the chokehold of corporations on society, more likely to have lower carbon emissions, etc etc etc. Poor people are inherently less consumptive in many ways, so I didn’t appreciate this rhetoric that assumes they need to assimilate to mainstream sustainability. Instead of framing it as poor people needing to learn from the well-off, white environmentalists, shouldn’t it be the other way around? It felt at times like Caradonna was blaming poor people, including the Global South, which is truly in poor taste considering their versions of sustainability are arguably better than the kind Caradonna is advocating for. And even if poor communities' lifestyles were unsustainable (even though they aren’t), is our time really best spent arguing over that when the top 1% contribute more emissions than the lower two-thirds combined? It’s a very minor part of the book, but come on dude, get real.

Ultimately, this book was great at capturing the broad strokes of sustainability in the hegemonic West since the 1700s, if that kind of thing interests you, like it does me. Would recommend, to the right person at least.